There are both implicit and explicit expectations in every exchange in an extended contest.
I'm using "Explicit" to describe the expectations specified by the players: "I flip over his head and hit him in the back with my sword"; "I ask him point-blank about the three hookers and the goat seen coming out of his hotel room"; "I entangle him in my tentacles"; "I tell her that her eyes are like limpid pools", even a bland "I hit him". Etc, ad nauseum. The explicit expectations are that (assuming the dice roll my way) I will get behind him and hit him in the back, fluster him and get the audience on my side, entangle him, or (blandly) hit him.
The Implicit expectation is that you will advance towards your contest oal - not just "get in a position to take an action", but actually gain on your opponent. This is my problem with the "you have to fix the problem before you go on" theory. "Fixing a problem" (whether psyching yourself up or getting up from the floor) is, to me, treading water without going forward. Every action should have the possibility of going forward - What happens when "I spend the round getting up" turns into a Crit-Fumble and I get the 3x transfer? Wow, I *really* must have psyched myself up! So much so that...err...he sees how psyched I am and gets scared ?!? "I [fix the problem] and [do a suitable action]" both fixes the problem, *and* advances me towards my goal. If the narrator wants me to make a larger bid, or take a penalty, or specify how I'm fixing the problem that's okay. But saying "You can't do Y until you do X" was not my intention when working on the rules.
RR
It is by my order and for the good of the state that the bearer of this has
done what he has done.
- Richelieu
Powered by hypermail